As an example of how the government destroys you when they want you to believe that they are helping you I prepared this hypothetical story.
The Cast:
A group of 3 men; 1 is a food producer, 1 is a water producer, 1 is a politician.
Their Skills:
The food producer can provide enough food for 2-3/4 people each day by working 8 hours each day.
The water producer can provide enough water for 2-3/4 people each day by working 8 hours each day.
The politician has an idea of how both the water and food producers and can increase their daily production to be enough for all 3 each day and reduce the amount of time it will take the producers to do it. He claims he has no other skills.
Outcomes:
The food and water producers will keep 1 day’s consumption requirement from each day’s production for themselves.
This leaves 1-3/4 days product to barter for other goods and services for each of the two producers.
The food and water producers agree to trade 1 day’s consumption requirements each day with each other.
This leaves 3/4 days product for each producer to barter for other goods and services.
So, what will the politician do? Here are some options
1. The politician has a gun. The producers do not have guns and the politician threatens the producers if they do not provide the food and water for his needs. This is an unlikely scenario because the politician realizes that if he injures the producers there will be no more product at all.
Aside: the politician is glad that he confiscated the producers’ guns. That act at least gives the politician this option.
2. The politician draws up a contract in which he will receive from the start of the contract until he is dead, from the producers and their heirs or from those who shall become the producers subsequently and to those who follow them forever into eternity, one day’s food and water. For this perpetual supply agreement, the politician will provide to the producers in return this one time only, the information each producer needs to increase their daily output so that they can produce enough food and water for 3 persons and do it 7-1/2 hrs. each day. There is a “no guarantee clause” in the contract. The two producers are impressed with what sounds like ingenuity from the politicians, so they sign the contract. After a few days of trying the great ideas, the producers realize it is taking 8-1/2 hours each day to produce enough for 3 people. Not the 7-1/2 hours they had hoped to achieve. The producers then realize they signed a contract with no guarantee so they were obligated to produce enough for 3 people each day despite the politician’s promise they would have to work less each day to achieve that goal.
3. The politician prepares the contract discussed in the previous option, but the producers will not sign the contract with a no guarantee clause. Their experience with him eating all the communal food in the warehouse made them wary of his goals. However, the producers are curious to see if the brilliant ideas work so they sign the contract with a guarantee to work clause and try the plan. It doesn’t work. When they don’t provide the food, the politician sues them claiming they did not understand or apply the ideas properly. He couldn’t make it work either, but that did not stop the politician from making the producers’ lives miserable for as long as he could drag it out.
4. The producers offer (in writing) to the politician the following proposal. The producers have determined from experience that they can produce product for 2 people by working 6 hours each day. The produce will work those 6 hours each day and the politician can work as many hours as he wishes after the 6 hours of the producer. In compensation for the work, the politician will receive the product that is in excess of the amount produced for the 2 producers. There is no guarantee that the excess amount produced will be adequate to meet the needs of the politician. If the politician determines that enough product is not available under this arrangement, he has two options; increase the hours he works to meet his needs. Or terminate the contract and nothing will be available to the politician.
5. The politician can beg the producers for any extra or remaining water and food.

aNote: What the producers won’t do is put their work product in communal warehouse where anyone can take what they need. They tried this once and the two producers worked 8 hours each day and discovered that the politician consumed everything in the warehouse while they were working. Compounding the problem was the fact that the politician never added anything to the warehouse stock.

The morals of this story and of life is:
1. That politicians provide nothing to the physical improvement of society. Many times, the results of their actions degrade society’s well-being.
2. Most times what morals politicians may start with ultimately seem to be lost or discarded.

The following is a list what social problems politicians have permanently solved for mankind: NONE, NOTHING, NIL, ZILCH, ZERO, NADA. Add other negative equivalents as you desire.

The following is a list of social problems politicians have permanently NOT solved for mankind: EVERYTHING THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO FIX / CHANGE.

For sports fans: 0 stands for infinity which is something to celebrate. I am afraid to see what would happen if they succeeded at something.

Added to Gab. September 4, 2022.
Added to Locals. September 4, 2022.
Added to Truth Social. September 4, 2022.